> No kidding. And is it just me, or are the "best" movies of this year generally uninteresting ones? I usually get all pumped for Oscar season, but bleh. Far From Heaven, About Schmidt, Antwone Fisher, Y tu Mama Tambien, The Pianist, The Quiet American, The Piano Teacher...I'm sure most of them are good movies, but not a one of those interests me at all. I want to see Chicago and The Hours, but that's only two for nine.

Yeah... I kind of want to see all of those, but not a TON. It's nothing like usual. I saw "About Schmidt" and was impressed with it, but not greatly so. The movie I was most excited for all year, "Adapatation," did not disappoint, at least.

> I fully realize that if I actually saw a few of those movies, I might very likely become excited about some of them, but usually I'm psyched to see some of the end-year Oscar movies beforehand. Is it just me, or is it a bad year for the art houses?

Maybe just bad marketing? I need to see more to say for sure.

> > I'd ditch Jackson from the "very likely" list and put Scorsese there. My prediction is "Gangs" will get nominated for a lot, but probably fail to win much. I'm pulling for Jonze to get a nod.
>
> That's probably a good call on Gangs, but I think Jackson will slip in thanks to a shortage of strong "director's" movies. Maybe that's why I'm not as pumped for the array of Oscar contenders this year: I'm generally attracted to director's movies and less so to writer's movies.

And yet we had a lot of interesting directors with movies this year:

- Soderbergh with "Solaris"
- Spielberg with "Catch Me If You Can" (and "Minority Report" earlier)
- Scorcese with "Gangs" (though I know Sam's not a huge Scorcese fan)
- Jackson with "Two Towers"
- Polanski with "The Pianist"
- P.T. Anderson (also a writer!) with "Punch Drunk Love"
- Sam Mendes with "Road to Perdition" (his second movie; but his debut was pretty amazing).

Though... looking at that list, I guess Sam is sort of right. It was directors trying some new stuff (Soderbergh and Anderson especially) and not necessarily big, easily excitable movies. Hrm.

> That brings me to Spike Jonze. I haven't seen Adaptation, but is that truly an accomplishment of its director or its writers? All I hear about Adaptation is how brilliant the screenplay is.

It's hard to say. The screenplay *is* brilliant, and while the direction is more understated than "Being John Malkovich" there is simply no way anybody but an extremely good director could've made the story comprehendable. All Jonze has done besides "Malkovich" (which also depended on its screenplay by... Kaufmann) are music videos (his rule, by the way). So I don't have a sense of what Jonze's directorial style really is. The movie is, however, a real achievment. I think Jonze may get a nod just for pulling off the script.

> It's probably a lock to *win* Adapted Screenplay, and maybe that means a Best Director nomination is a lock, too, but, I dunno.

If there is justice, it will win Adapted Screenplay. I thought the same thing about the screenplay to "Malkovich." Might I remind you, though, that "Gladiator" beat "Traffic" for best picture?

> The vibes I'm getting aren't leaning that way. I kind of think a Best Picture nomination is more likely, although this is exactly the opposite of how Being John Malkovich turned out, getting a Best Director nomination and no Best Picture nomination.

Yeah. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see it get a director/picture/screenplay nomination (though it's chances of winning anything other than screenplay seem nill). We'll see.

> > > What about screenwriting?
>
> Tom Brady and Rob Schneider have a lock for their screenplay of "The Hot Chick."

Let's hope so.

Stephen